User talk:Gvsualan/archive
Bot Hi, if you want to control a bot, just drop me an or read the pages linked from Memory Alpha:Bot -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 16:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC) Resizing images I'm grateful that you've resized the images I've uploaded. I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to editing pictures. Any tips for doing so, to avoid you having to clean up after me? Tough Little Ship 21:25, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC) * No big deal. The size of the files (space used) you have been uploading have been just fine, its just the size of the (viewable) image that seems a bit oversized. Basically I just do it with the standard MS Paint program that comes with my Win XP. Typically, I reduce the images to 80% their original size, but sometimes down to 60%, all depending on the degree of detail required to keep the images value. --Alan del Beccio 21:31, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC) ** Thanks, I'll (hopefully) remember that in the future. Tough Little Ship 21:32, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC) Interwiki check before deletion Hello, I just noticed that you did delete Interface after you moved it to Interface (episode). However you did not change the interwiki links in the other language versions. Next time a bot accesses de:Interface it will look up Interface and will notice it does not exist and remove the link to the page in the other editions, because it does not know it was moved to a new place. I would kindly request you either wait with deletion or change the links in MA/de and MA/nl while doing maintenence. By the way: it is not the first time that a link was reported broken by my bot because you deleted the redirect -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 08:44, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) :I don't understand the page move anyway. The article should only be moved if a disambiguation page is created, which was not the case here. Since there are severaly links to Interface (episode), I just undeleted the redirect for the moment. Please also see the updated deletion policy, which clarifies that redirects should only be deleted if really necessary. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 10:21, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) :: I lost my connection last night before I was able to finish. Nevertheless, it was moved because the term "Interface" applied to other references than the just the episode, and as has been common practive the episode gets moved to a link with the "(episode)" qualifier. If you look at the existing pages left linked to Interface you can clearly see that what remained were not references to the episode. Therefore Interface was not intended to be a redirct to Interface (episode). --Alan del Beccio 18:05, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) But then it would be easier to clear the references to Interface (Episode) with a bot with the redirect being present, because there are most likely false linked pages -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 18:13, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Like I said I lost my connection last night so I wasn't able to finish completely, and as you can now see, I have created a page properly for Interface. Nevertheless, I was far enough along that if anyone could have check the remaining pages on the "what links here" page to see what was going on, and to see that the remaining links were not in reference to the episode. Why this has become an issue is beyond me, but aside from the simple fact that I overlooked the links to other language pages, my efforts were rather thorough, and what's done is done. If there is anything else I overlooked, then I leave it in your quite capable hands. :) --Alan del Beccio 18:58, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC) Zed-15 Thank you for adding a footnote to Surplus Depot Z15 about the correct name from the show. I guess we have too many foreigners working on Memory Alpha, or for some reason common sense wasn't working well when that page got moved -- i'm grateful that someone else realizes there's a problem with the consensus to use the wrong name -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:21, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) :You've noticed this? Correct name... --Memory 19:44, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Common sense worked very well there... :) -- Cid Highwind 20:22, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC) Type-10 shuttlecraft I was about to create the article, but after reading the talk page of the Enterprise-E shuttle, I thought it best to ask if the Type-10 shuttlecraft is canon? --Tough Little Ship 18:37, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I would personally say it is acceptable. I believe the term may have originated from the DS9 tech manual (and seen in "The Sound of Her Voice")...especially considering how most of the other designations listed in the ST: Encyclopedia that we use here originated from the Encyclopedia not in any episode. I think any shuttle designated at ex-astris-scientia is acceptable (...which, by the way, does not have the type 11, which I believe the Enterprise-E shuttle was referred to...) as long as the origin of the source is clearly written. Anyone else have any comments on this? --Alan del Beccio 19:18, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) Defiant/Intrepid escape pod I was reading the Ex Astris Scientia link you posted above, specifically the Defiant class/Intrepid class escape pods being the same. Since we have Sovereign class escape pod, what would an article on them best be called? Tough Little Ship 19:48, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Not sure. What if we merged it all into escape pod and made a large article out of that, and have it subsectioned by starship class, Federation, alien, etc? --Alan del Beccio 19:55, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** I found Starfleet escape pod (2370s). Would that be okay to use? Or is it too encompasing? Tough Little Ship 20:05, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) *** Federation escape pod (like Federation shuttlecraft), would probably be more accurate considering they are often referred to as Federation starships. --Alan del Beccio 20:09, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) Need help? Hey, I noticed you were adding categories to several articles. I currently can't think of anything to write, so is there any way I could help you out? If you want/need it, of course. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I was about to head to bed, but I thought I would note what I had going through my head. There are a couple things I've been messing around with that I am sort of stuck on. **1) I started the Category:Topography, as it seemed to cover a great deal more than rivers and mountains, but then I did some research and noticed that there is a LOT of stuff that is similar and could be somehow categorized together in one or two categories, potentially eliminating "Topography". I have them listed at: User:Gvsualan/geography. Maybe you have some ideas with what could be done with that. **2) With Category:Films (if indeed that sticks), I think it would just be easier to get Morn-bot to do the categorizing there. Otherwise, I am still somewhat unsettled with some of the less concise items that do not fit into the categories of music/musicians, art/artists, literature/writers, which I mentioned in category suggestions. Mostly, where to put instruments and genres and the other art references that aren't as specific as what the categories cover, but do not include enough examples to constitute an entire category for. I'm also not sure how to fit TV shows (ie 'I Love Lucy') in there or newspapers (ie 'The Star Dispatch') in there -- clearly they are related topics, but again, they just are not enough to constitute an entire category alone...and I'm not sure they really belong in Category:Films and Category:Literature respectively. *And that's that. --Alan del Beccio 07:04, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'll take a look at them, but I'm not sure I completely understand the first problem. Is it the items in the "human geography" section or is it that there are so many bodies of water or so many mountains, etc., that each could fit in their own category? As for the second problem, I'll see if I can help come up with a solution. --From Andoria with Love 07:17, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) * The first problem is that Topography should probably be Category:Geography and Geography should probably be split into Category:Physical geography and Category:Human geography (humanoid??) -- or Landmarks or I dunno, I guess the problem is, is that I've made it much more complicated than it was. :-P *Anyway, Feel free to edit User:Gvsualan/geography if you want to juggle things around some or have some additions. I think I have them organized fairly well, though I'm sure I'm missing plenty of references from VOY and ENT. Anyway, I'm hitting the sack. L8R. --Alan del Beccio 07:23, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) : Alrighty, I'll see what I can do, but I'll probably be hitting the hay here in a bit myself. Oh, and was it really necessary to announce you were leaving and for the vandals to rejoice? What about that discreetness we talked about? :P Anyways, good night, and worry not, the rest of us will do our best to keep any potential "van-dols" at bay. --From Andoria with Love 07:29, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I think you're probably gonna have to figure the topography thing out without me, although I will add anything I notice missing. But I do have one suggestion that I want to throw out for the second problem: how about making film and television one category? This way, you can have a subcategory labeled actors and actresses (or just plain actor). Of course, that would still leave out radio. Hmm... Let's try this (my apologies if this gets a bit messy): Category:Arts and entertainment *Category:Art **Category:Artists (for painters) *Category:Music **Category:Musicians *Category:Literature (for books, novels, and poems) **Category:Authors (and playwrights) *Category:Mass media (for film, television, radio, and periodicals such as magazines and newspapers) **Media personalities (for actors, actresses, comedians, radio personalities, and periodical writers & editors) How does that look? Actually, I'm not sure if I'm happy with that either, but this late at night, it's the best I can do. :/ As for instruments and genres... I don't know. That's a tough one. --From Andoria with Love 08:10, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) Template creation As far as I am aware, there's no mandatory discussion of templates before they are created. The only type of page that needs to be discussed at the moment are categories and, of course, policy pages or changes to them. It is suggested to discuss anything that would lead to big changes throughout the wiki, which includes templates, though. -- Cid Highwind 20:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) * It sound's sort of link you contradicted yourself, did you mean "which includes" or "does not include" templates? --Alan del Beccio 21:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Sorry, I should have clarified: I believe a new template should be discussed if its use leads to big changes throughout the wiki (for example, using the new series-template that was suggested somwhere recently) - just like any other addition that leads to big changes. So change the above to "which includes some templates". :) -- Cid Highwind 21:38, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) Vandalism in progress :Hi, just a tip: if you add "&bot=1" to the contributions of a vandal and then hit the "rollback" button, your rollback is marked with the bot flag and becomes invisible in recent changes .. Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 08:19, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) Your edits You probably thought from the title of the comment that I was going to go "Why did you remove that info from the episode page???" or something stupid, but I actually wanted to compliment you on your work. You seem to do all of the things other users don't want to do, don't think to do, or just don't know how to do. Keep up the good work. :-) 193.251.169.170 05:53, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Thanks. Hey, why don't you register? --Alan del Beccio 06:01, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) **Probably should've already, but I'm about to go to bed so maybe tomorrow. 193.251.169.170 06:04, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) Spelling Are we all supposed to use American spelling here? When people change someone else's spelling on Wikipedia, it's usually reverted. --Schrei 08:24, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Well, we're not Wikipedia, we use their templates for operating in times of turmoil, but all in all we operate, rules and all, independantly from their doings. Essentially, we use American spelling because the scripts are written in that format and we conform to the spelling the American writers write the American scripts in for the American tv show. Love, Alan del Beccio 08:38, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) **No wonder the Arabs hate us. :P --Schrei 08:39, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***Okay, yeah, that makes a lot of sense, go behind the admin who knows what he's doing and revert his edit...real smooth. --Alan del Beccio 08:43, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) Latest DVDs Good idea about changing episodes to DVDs. Although I thought the idea of a sort of international TV Guide might be appealing, the task of updating it would have been more trouble than it's worth. --Schrei 15:58, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) * yeah, I recall AJ bringing it up quite a while ago and no one really got to it, and having forgotten about it I brought it up again and he reminded me of his proposal of it and so I thought it would be worth doing for a few months. It would probably be a bit more effective if we could get the other regions added to it, such as 3 and 4 and whatever else there may be (im not that DVD saavy) to fill it out more. As for continuously updating upcoming episodes of reruns that seems rather blah, new episodes was originally for *new* episodes, and I later changed it, for the summer to note when the syndication of Enterprise was to begin, which was last weekend. Anywho, after all the DVDs are released, presumably after the the first of the year we can most likely remove the entire template altogether, or post links to tvguide.com and the international variations, if people are that lazy to type the links into their address bars themselves. :) --Alan del Beccio 20:30, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) Please help! I'm trying to follow MA guidelines, and not lose my temper but I feel that some of the newer users keep targeting me! I was editing "These Are the Voyages...", and didn't realise my edits were too much. Vedek Dukat left a message stating that the page should not be edited further and that my edits were too often. He didn't even contact me on the article's Talk or my own, and I know that this action was personal. I've contacted you as I have previously read that users are advised to contact other users when such a situation arises. Please help me! --Defiant | ''Talk'' 21:48, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your help, it's appreciated. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 22:17, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC) Proper Point of View I believe we discussed this in the photon torpedo talk page, but when writing articles here, and I believe there is a link in the above welcome message (specifically the manual of style), but in regards to Engineering Circuit Bay and Trititanium, they are written in the entirely wrong perspective. ...Except that it is written it the entirely wrong perspective. Our articles are written from within the Star Trek pov, and your additions were added from the perspective of "outside looking in". They either need to be rewritten from the Star Trek universe perspective or placed into the background section, which would be written in our perspective. --Alan del Beccio 06:10, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) ...Although having once thought you understood the style issue in our previous discussion and with this revival of the coversation, once again, please review our manual of style. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 03:58, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Actually, I have no objection to people formatting my info to the correct style, but perhaps you can suggest a better way to state possible connections and associations, for example the tritanium possibly being the same material as trititanium? Since this association is uncertain, if one were to state that the relationship was certain one would be misinforming. What you're looking for is certain black-and-white info which can easily be stated from the POV of from inside Trek, but many things like this example are not certain and can't be done as easily. But like I said I'd like to hear your solution to how you would express it. Unless of course you're saying that observations of Treknical details like these are unwelcome and have no place at Memory Alpha. *Also, another strange thing: I can't seem to find any mention of your contention that articles have to follow a required "point of view" for Memory Alpha articles, even any mention that they have to follow a perspective from inside the Trek universe as you claim. In fact, I read the exact opposite, that rules are flexible and can change as the situation and context requires. If you'd like to point out this section to us in the style manual I will be sure to look it over carefully. --Atrahasis 07:30, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::You know, I was about to leave a comment about something else when I noticed this, and I began to wonder... It turns out that Atrahasis is right. I had to do a Google search, because I knew I'd seen the POV issue somewhere before and I thought I was just overlooking something since I couldn't find the policy either. I guess it's one of those unwritten rules. Probably not for long though, since it seems like we have to have a policy for everything lately. --Schrei 06:35, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::I personlly don't see how such a "point of view from inside Trek" policy can be enforced given that the nature of Wiki is supposed to be more flexible than that so that any situation can be covered. Logically, the kind of POV that Gvsualan personally prefers can only be used with irrefutable and clear information that is uttered or present in an episode or movie, like the number of pips on Kirk's sleeve or whatnot. However, when it comes to dialogue, there are often many ways to interpret a comment. The most logical and neutral way of reporting a comment is thus without assuming that one interpretation is correct, and to offer multiple possible meanings, while noting they are only personal suggestions as to the meaning, much as a jouranlist would do. In fact, even naming simple things like the color of an item in a scene or what happens in an FX shot depends much on technical details of one's viewing apparatus, quality of the footage, as well as personal interpretation. Given that, often we will need to offer alternative choices or explanations as to what we see. Personally, it sounds to me like Gvsualan has a personal preference to make the articles at Memory Alpha more like a Trek Encyclopedia, but the logical problem with that is that this is a wikipedia, where the nature of such is to have flexible POV's to suit the situation...as it says in Memory Alpha's own style manual! --Atrahasis 07:09, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::Does this example give you a better idea of how we do things on MA? Basically, anything that's not a 100% established "canonical" (I think that term's overrated, but anyway) fact is indented and added in italics to make the distinction between canon and stuff that happened in books or stuff that might be true even if it wasn't explicitly stated, and whatever else that's not canon and/or can't be stated in the proper POV. --Schrei 07:19, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) :::::If something can be canon only if it can be stated in the "proper point of view", then why does the MA style manual overwhelmingly support a "do as you see fit according to the situation/context" policy and there is no official mention of a proper point-of-view style? The two ideas are at odds with one another, because the nature of a flexible style aims to maximize information and perspective, while a single POV aims to limit it. What you should all be saying is that the "single POV" is not an official policy, rather it is the preference of some people, and they can go about and edit the articles to that style if they so desire, but the more important thing is user contribution and information accruement. Therefore I advise that people stop claiming it is official policy, or make it official policy and see how congruent it is with the present official style manual. --Atrahasis 14:46, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::::::Okay. You are right about the fact that there is no EXPLICIT section telling you to write in the proper POV. But looking at any random page will kind of give you the idea that this is a Star Trek wiki! I will write a new policy ASAP, if that is what is needed to solve this problem. I know wikis are supposed to be about "power to the people", but in this case, I am your god, and I tell you to write in proper POV. There's enough room for background information in italics or in a Background information section. Hell, if you really want to discuss stuff, use the Talk pages. -- Harry 20:58, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) (one of the founders of this project) * This has nothing to do with personal preference. Just take a look one of 10000+ non Meta-trek articles written here and I think it is quite clear what I mean by point of view. It's an encyclopedia, from the Star trek universe perspective. Everything that it not in that perspective is in the "background". *M/A is written in the same point of view as the Star Trek Encyclopedia, except that the contributions are more extensive and original. I think just from how the examples established in establish context and manual of style are set up might tip you off on that one, especially the latter article. Every example in the MoS is written in the perspective I am speaking of, Trek pov or from within the Trek universe. * Scroll down on that page a bit and we come to a section that reads "background information and comments", under that section we have: On occasion, it is necessary or appropriate to include commentary about an unusual or contested point of information in an article. If there is a sufficient amount of information, it should be contained in a separate section, named ' Background information '. Alternatively, comments and information may be described in a short paragraph (no longer than three sentences) that is indented and italicized. * A link on that page, Memory Alpha:Cite your sources, which does not include citing the episodes within the article (unless in the aforementioned background, and or if the article is a non-Trek pov article (ie Lincoln Enterprises), again clearly established. * Additionally, Guide to Layout is also a useful reference, in this matter. * Also, User:Cid Highwind has an example page with explaination that you might wish to look at User:Cid Highwind/Canonical article layout -- and he is a lot higher up the admin food chain that I, so this is not MY idea of point of view. * Finally, I have rewritten trititanium in the proper M/A point of view, corresponding with the 10000+ other articles that 5 minutes of site searching with confirm. (I should note, I haven't seen the episode in a while, so the facts in the second paragraph about the sensors might not be completely accurate, but they are at least close) ** And Engineering_Circuit_Bay has been re-written with the same formula. --Alan del Beccio 07:56, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) *** With all due respect, unless I'm very much mistaken it's still not official policy, because it is difficult to reconcile philosophically with the wiki principle of user contribution and information accruement first, above all else. You can politely request people to try and make an effort to conform to the style, but claiming it is official policy does not seem to be true, and second it hampers the power of wiki to accrue contributions and information from as wide a range as possible (and I do mean within the bounds of canon). Of course, if other admins feel the same as you do they should chime in here, but they'd first have to explain why the "single POV" style isn't official policy. *** Also, I recommend that you correct your contribution on trititanium, your claim that it cloaks sensors, because that is your own (and somewhat incorrect) interpetation of the dialogue. What Spock says exactly is that "Ship's hull seems to have a high density level, or is cloaked against sensor probes". You wrote: Against Federation sensor probes, vessels with trititanium hulls appear either to have a high density level or seem as if they are partially cloaked. (TOS: "Journey to Babel") Your comment insinuates that trititanium naturally befuddles sensors, but Spock's actual meaning seems to be that a high density of the material or a (seperate) cloaking system can be befuddling the sensors in that situation, quite different from your own conclusion, wouldn't you say? *** And, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there isn't a convention amongst many of the articles here at MA, but I see no official policy telling us to do what you are suggesting. All I've seen so far is something close to what you are suyggesting on someone's user page, but not on any of the official manuals you directed me to. Perhaps you should talk with the other staff to see if they agree with putting in some clauses in there that tell us all explicitly to conform to the "single POV" style. *** Also, in your re-write of the trititanium article to the "single POV" style, you left out the part I had originally written about whether the material is the same as tritanium or not and the relevant references to TOS "Obsession". I realize you probably did this to make your "single POV" sound more "official", but when you did that you chose to delete rather interesting information that could at least have been included in the background info section somewhere, which as far as I can see would have been completely acceptable. This does point out, however, the limitations of the "single POV" style...it can be tyrannical in its own way, which makes it philosophically uncomfortable with the spirit of wiki which is to maximize all relevant info, which in my opinion is probably why it is not official policy. --Atrahasis 14:46, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ****Okay, now you are just being petty about content and straying from the topic at hand, as I do believe I had said: "I should note, I haven't seen the episode in a while, so the facts in the second paragraph about the sensors might not be completely accurate, but they are at least close". As in, "it's a rough draft, its from memory, perfection is not required -- edit till your hearts content." --Alan del Beccio 18:30, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***** Your edit being a rough draft is one thing, but the way you did it didn't explain why you chose to leave out the "out of perspective" association between tritanium/trititanium that I had originally written in there, which would have been fine as background info. Like I said, it points out that philosophically speaking there are certain things that the "in-perspective" is uncomfortable with, namely with less-than certain information but nevertheless possible associations. Personally, I'm not in favor of deletions of anything relevant and worthy of further research, but the "in-perspective" does in reality favor a kind of censorship. But now that the POV requirement is official policy, as it probably should have been in the first place, the philosophical issues bewteen the nature of wiki and the goals of Memory Alpha have been more clearly delineated. Basically, MA had to make it explicit policy that it is not pure wiki. --Atrahasis 03:54, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Clearly this kind of policy has be "implied" for to long, and should be made into Official policy soon. I, like many I believe, assume Memory Alpha is to be like a better version of the Star Trek Encyclopedia. I agree with the notion, and prefer it that way. We are a database, for strict canonical data. Memory Alpha is, essentially, an encyclopedia. And you don't open any encyclopedia and read "comments" from the writer of the encyclopedia, no matter how accurate it may be. And talk pages aren't chat rooms, so this kind of discussion, if it is to invite the opinions of other users, should be moved to a policy-nomination-page. - AJHalliwell 19:36, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC) Deletions I noticed you've been deleting tons of talk pages -- is there any policy that' letting you do this, because if i want to find an old talk page, i often find i have to undelete it because of your actions. I believe the wholesale deletion of some types of discussions is actually forbidden by -- could you try and not do this unless there's a good reason to? Perhaps limit any article you delete to ones that are listed on Vfd, Ifd or Pfid for a while please? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:46, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Sorry, with those that had no corresponding articles, I figured they just forgot to be deleted, as they usually are deleted when we delete VFD's. The rest of the talk pages were obsolete talk pages or other pages that qualified for immediate deletes. --Alan del Beccio 18:30, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)